Also, If the Bismark had been designed like very few other BB's of that era (US Iowa class)then she should have been designed with individual rudder steering (in other words they can be steered individualy) in case of damage to one of the two.
IMO, If Bismark would have been designed with either four shafts (which would have eliminated the "central shaft") and therefore give more aid to "casuality" steering being able to increase speed on one set and full reverse on the other set then perhaps she would have had some kind of manuverability after the rudders were damaged.
tommy303 wrote: Bear in mind though, that she had the support and protection of her carrier task force until she was out of the combat zone.
James Finlay wrote:Book on Ark Royal commented on Bismarck's stern jamming by collapsing on rudders when aerial launched torpedo hit on 26th May.The stern was so designed to reduce drag but was insufficienly armoured.
Book on Rodney commented on 16" shell stern hit severely damaging or detaching stern section at circa 1027 hrs. 27th May - final action against the Bismarck.
Tirpitz reported to have had stern strengthened following Bismarck 'disaster' (that is 'disaster' for the German Navy, not the British - mercifully!),
Prinz Eugen later in war had stern section blown off by British Submarine torpedo. Repaired I think by fitting that from 'never to be completed' Aircraft Carrier (based on Hipper class cruiser hull design maybe?)
All above seems to point to congenital weakness in these ships.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest